Reviews (by andrew)

Needs work. The first South bundle was good but for some strange reason the developer decided to not cover the reefs with a water mask so they look really terrible. Several airports like NTTR are missing textures. I love the south bundle but this bundle is questionable quality. Support in very bad English I believe says to rename files to get the water masks back but if you do that it gets rid of the fringing reefs. Why can't the developer just do the North E and W packs the same as the south. Very Disappointing. Or.. At least give use the option to have reflective water covering her reefs and lagoons.

It's good. The Austral look great, Mangareva now looks much better. Faa'a looks accurate and texturing is good. Not top tier like Inibuilds Nadi but definitely worth the money. A lot of corners cut with texturing and modeling, I wish the developer would have spent a bit more time on Faa'a, it's obvious the developer has talent but the texturing is just not quite up to FS24 standards, looks more like an X-Plane scenery. Sometimes its looks horrible. Check out the ATR-72s in the hangars, yikes.

This particular scenery is not too bad. The textures are a little over done but the airport is accurate and functions well except for 3 major things. 1. the VGDS system is improperly placed on many gates so they are just disembodied and hanging out in space. 2. There are several gates B3 and B5 for example) where the bridges and the gates themselves are not at the same height, this looks terrible. 3. There are no AI planes parking at the North Satellite (N Gates) or at C2 and C-10 Q gates for Horizon, The parking codes are off from real life, and attempt was made but Alaska parks pretty much everywhere. The airport terminal textures are a bit too weathered. And of course Feel There never uses commercial branding like airlines, so the immersion factor is very low. Solid effort but just not good enough. I can over look the lack of branding if the other 3 things I mentioned were fixed.

This is the excellent, so much done. The mountains look great, the vegetation looks fantastic. The hotels are all there. The heliport is modeled, the lagoon phototiles are now complete on the south side of the lagoon, I wish the reef was a little sharper res, but it loos much better. Very nicely done! The only thing I was a little disappointed in was that none of Vaitape town was done. No ferry dock, welcome center or church,

Not very good. My main complaint is the texturing. It has that default, too clean look. There are no artistic touches. The wood louvres that cover the windows are too orangish in color they need to be darker and a lot of them have paint peeling. The roof textures aren't varied enough, they are missing the Tahitian murals on the sides of the terminal. The terminal is really sterile, doesn't give the right vibe. There should be lots of potted plants and a lot more plant life in general out in the front of the terminal. I don't see the little white globe lights. I don't see the white fencing on the eastside that keeps passengers out of the ops area. No moving people anywhere. The green canopies are too tall, they should be below the angled awning and the windows below them, not in line with the windows. For 18 or even 12 dollars I would expect more details. But the reason I give it 2 stars is the "AFCAD", parking sports for the ATRs are incorrect and do not allow clearance for another ATR to taxi behind or between the spots. Also, traffic does not take off, it only lands. Jets will taxi out the runway but then will just sit there until they disappear. The north side of the airport looks bad, very undetailed, the marina is covered by water, there was no thought given to the north side of the airport. I'd give it 3 stars if the "AFCAD" was fixed and some more details were added, some retexturing was done. This is a 9 dollar airport at best.

Awesome scenery. Except the parking assignments. I just don't understand why developers are not assigning correct airline gates. You can clearly see in the screen shots that airplanes are not parking where they are supposed to and I know it is possible to make them do so. The fact that they can't be bothered to assign correct gates hurts immersion.

The scenery looks really good. Has airline branded AGE around, Textures are crisper than I thought they would be. The only thing that hurts the scenery and it is a doozie... Is that Airline parking codes are not assigned and I can not get anything bigger than a crj to park at the terminal, they dont park in the correct spots and 737 park on the kirtland ramp. I contacted them and Leandro Mochado said hed get back to me... back in December. So I held off on this review, I always give devs a chance to fix things before I rate. So 3 stars due to 'AFCAD' and ATC issues. If they fixed it is a 4 star scenery.

There are many good things about this scenery. The ortho underlay is fantastic and up to date, Everything fits nicely and looks convincing. Performance is acceptable, Textures are just OK. My main issue with the scenery is a lack of attention to detail when it comes to the gate piers. Many piers are depicted incorrectly. For instance at gate B2 and 4 and most of the D gates. The piers all look the same and have HSBC billboards but the real airport does not look like that. I wish the developer would take their time and get these details right.

It's not as bad as I was expecting. The texturing is not up to MSFS standards but there are some PBR materials. The airport is accurate, complete, and current. TropicalSim just seems like they are stuck in the FS9 days as far as texturing goes. The interiors are modeled in the international terminal poorly and the windows are opaque so you can't see the airplane from inside the terminal. Stock MSFS Jetways. Areas outside of the terminal look good. Worth it on sale but not at full price.

A bit better than earlier sceneries. Some PBR textures used. The airport is accurate, buildings are current and look correct. The GOL maintenance area has some static 737-800s. The 50 meter hill for terraforming is there as wall as on the sides of the runway. However, the elevation/mesh data creates weird steps on the land side and a large trough on the west side of the runway. Of course, the gates are stock MSFS which works for some gates but not all. I'd give this effort 3.5 stars. BLG is obviously a quantity over quality developer. Unless someone else does this scenery this is a good representation of the airport for a lowish price.

The airport is accurate and the building are all custom so it's much better than default. There are some nice touches like the derelict 727s. The problem with BLG is inconsistent effort. One building looks great then the building next to it looks like FS2004. The biggest problem is the low res textures used on the terminal and lack of detail. It looks like they started to put better effort into Belo Horizonte and later sceneries. Do you want a representation of Curitiba airport? This is the only one.

Probably one of the best sceneries I have ever seen. Really brings Santos Dumont to life! Only thing I noticed was that AI aircraft act weird and taxi strangely. Perhaps some editing of taxi links is in order.

It looks like a port over with material and some additional modifications. no complaints. Not as good as Zurich or Chicago. Not sure why landside ground textures are so terrible, that's why I give it 4 stars. Airside everything looks pretty good. I was impressed that the "AFCAD" works flawlessly with AIG. Worth the money for sure. Hopefully we get Honolulu or Houston soon.

UPDATE: The thrust reversers do work and they are indicated and animated. However, I found other things wrong. The experience is still not pleasant. I have tried many hours with with this airplane but the AP is super buggy. The managed vs selected speed during phases of flight are wonky in the FMC. For instance the FMC automatically chose to descend but it never stopped descending. And trying to arrest the decent and level off took a lot of work no matter what I did it kept descending. It took shutting off every AP switch setting and then trying again. I had a competitors product for FSX and it did not behave in this fashion. I have watched many videos on the jet but all the suggestions seem like bandaids or workarounds rather than us just not understanding how it works. The take off characteristics are awful, the plane is way too twitchy. Does not work like the real airplane. The more I fly it the worse it gets. If they could fix the autopilot logic to mirror the real airplane more closely and get the flight dynamics better I'd give it three stars. If they got rid of the excessive scratching on the windshield and overhead textures and improved the custom gauges I'd give it 4 stars. but there is too much that is off. We know the E190/195 is coming next so since they have the same cockpit just take the time to fix everything that is wrong.

The flight dynamics are very unrealistic and the plane is very hard to control (it should not be). The autopilot does not work, the VS mode does not work in a turn, won't hold altitude and starts descending. If you bring up the flaps the AP won't catch the airplane from nose diving. The trim is strange, the flaps have too much lift and lift the nose. The plane is not stable on an ILS approach, keeps wondering back and fourth and if you add flaps to quickly it will start climbing out of the glide slope. The AP does not deal well with the speed brakes being deployed during decent. The displays are all unrealistic, don't look like the real jet, no vertical profile in the MFD. No weather, No TCAS. No thrust reversers, no animation for them, no indication. The E170/E175 does have thrust reversers IRL. Clouds cause haze in the cockpit. I mean there is so much to list even beyond known quality issues. This effort is not as good as their P3d/FSX version. That version actually flew and had fairly accurate systems despite not being high quality.

It's about the quality of an older Aerosoft Airports. Not bad, but not worth 30 dollars. 20 dollars..ok maybe. A must have for Japan domestic flying.

Looks really nice, very accurate, fast GA, great for sightseeing. Performance is good, flight dynamics seem realistic. My only complaint is it seems to just get yanked into the air and its's hard to grease a landing. I have logged a lot of hours in this plane, but cant seem to master the landing or take off. it seems like it just gets close to the ground and then pancakes on to the runway. It's strange.

This is the plane that I knew virtualcol was capable of. Great textures, okay simulations in the cockpit, cockpit looks correct from all videos i have seen, it has ok flight dynamics, decent sound. A believable representation of the A220 with out any major flaws. Good FPS. Exterior model is very good for screen shots. Not a study level airplane obviously but a really solid effort from Virtualcol. I recommend buying it. Now go back and fix the E-175/195 package to this standard. You guys really tuned out a much better effort on the ATR the second time around.

FSX version: I get very poor performance at KSEA. The performance was so poor I had to turn off all the other airports except for KSEA. After that the performance was still very poor. So I reinstalled using light textures and no static aircraft. Performance was still poor. I though maybe it was just me and T2G KSEA also performed poorly so I got the same aircraft with the same settings in the same spot. With DD KSEA I was getting 9-13 FPS with T2G I was getting 18-24 FPS. I would also like to say I had this same experience with New York Airports. I was excited for a new JFK so I switched from FSDT to DD NY Airports and man was I disappointed. I was getting about 13-18 fps at FSDT and when I made the switch to DD I had to do the same thing. I get rid of all the airports except for JFK because it was a slideshow. Even after that the best I could do was 6-14 FPS. Very poor performance, crazy stutters and freezes very long texture load times. My system is an i7 4810M @ 2.8 GHz turbo @3.5 GHz and a GeForce 980M. I gave the product 4 stars because it's a fantastic concept and it looks great and it looks like everyone else is happy with performance. I just am going to have to give up on DD products on this particular computer.

Taxi2gate is quickly becoming my favorite developer. LFPG max settings with complex aircraft still gets me 20 fps minimum in all weather and times of day. I knew this developer was good when they made KSEA perform in the mid 20s fps wise. Not to mention the 3d terminal interiors and fantastic hi-res textures. All of this at a lower price than other big name developers. Their ground polys can be a bit strange looking and they often overlook minor details (in EDDM in snow the 3d ground objects like over passes and raised earth berms are green wile everything else is white.) but over all still fantastic scenery with amazing performance.

It's very FS2004 lookking. It's not up to par with today's sceneries. It is a pretty good representation of the Operations at Male. I love how the sky is just full of Twin otters everywhere and the ops seem pretty realistic. Where the scenery really falls down is the trees. On a tropical island the trees need to look convincing, and these look worse than default FSX trees. So really the issue is that the textures just arent up to modern FSX/P3D standards. If the were this would easily be a 5 star product for value, completeness of package and immersion.

This scenery should be a 5 star scenery, however there is a major issue that is holding it back. First the good. Crisp textures, good object modeling, great performance, very accurate. But... there is an annoying issue for some customers where the mesh is not cooperating. I have no mesh addons in that area and I have uninstalled reinstalled the whole thing from scratch. If you go to Mahe the runway has spots where the terrain shows through, then if you go into dispalay settings and change the display mesh res. everything is totally fine. Everything I have tried from every forum has not yielded a fix. Very odd.

Finally! I had the old ATRs from these guys and they were very subpar, at first I thought this was the same exact product but then I saw some screenshots i thought were mislabeled. I thought they were the flight 1 ATR but no they are shots of this new revamped ATR from Virtualcol. The model is much improved (the prop cones aren't detached from the model), the textures are much improved (they look really realistic now and are super high res), the VC actually looks 50% better (the VC used to be super low res on the bezels and panels, but now you can actually see detail in the screw heads and the autopilot panel has 3-d buttons), the flight dynamics are improved (no, more cruising at 40000 feet or, climbing at a ridiculous speed fully loaded. even the ground handling is improved). The lighting is improved (nice looking and much more realistic), the sound is improved (no more panning washing machine sound when turning). Nice cockpit sounds, callouts etc, the cargo doors open that is a nice touch. The 600s look a lot more realistic systems wise. There are still a few issues. 1. the FMS panel gets washed out when the sun is from behind (it looks really silly) The over head panels is better but not great. The 320 models are missing the ovehead panel entirely. If Virtual col can go back and revisit their E-175-195 I might buy that too. Really this is a huge improvement over the last one.

I don't see any issues with this scenery except for those awful low res hedges at the end of the runways. But hey cntrl+J works, that's worth 4 stars alone these days from an Aerosoft product. Overall, a real nice scenery. Nice textures, excellent frame rates, great accuracy, nice details. This scenery has been a long time coming. 10 years! better late than never I suppose.

Better than Tahiti X, but still lacking. Just small details that keep it from being 5 stars. Sometimes textures are sharp and crisp then other times they are crude and lazy. The ditch beside the runway at Faa'a or any of the other airports is a mismatch colored polygon. Some of the textures at Faa'a look straight out of FS9. Faa'a really needs improvement. There is also water on vertical surfaces which is terrible looking. The photo scenery sits on top of a mesh but it wasn't edited well and so the grass is elevated but then the water follows vertically up the side. Night time is where I find this scenery to not be so great. The lagoons glow bright blue when they should be pitch black. This was a good opportunity to really make an immersive night experience but it just looks like day darkened. I was hoping to see dark land and sea textures so you can get that black hole effect while turning after takeoff. Although admittedly that is a limitation of FSX/P3D. The developer could have spent more time blacking the photo tiles out for night time. In reality you can only see city lights and the rest is just pitch black. No auto gen night lighting, so cities look okay, but not great. No AI air traffic, That was one awesome thing about Tahiti X was a custom air traffic file. You can take the one from Tahiti X and leave it in world/scenery/world. The terrain mesh looks really nice. The photo tiles are very sharp looking, the airports look better than Tahiti X, certainly more accurate. Customer support is very good. I keep hoping for a Fly Tampa or quality French Polynesia, but so far this is the best one.

The textures are improved pretty significantly on the terminal. The performance for my rig is approximately a 40% improvement over the previous version. I would still say performance is not on par with Fly Tampa, T2G, FSDT or Flightbeam. Since this is the only Frankfurt you can buy you'll have to buy it. Although runway 25L/7R is depicted properly AI planes don't use it because of the ramp. I think this was a huge oversight. Overall pretty good.

Best weather program bar none. I have REX and did not like its weather engine. I still use it for the awesome textures though. I had Opus and it was good, but it just did not have everything I was looking for. ASN is awesome, the options are plentiful, I love the 0 visibility fades in the clouds. I love the way it accurately depicts valley fog and fog in general. I like the fixed extended cloud draw distances (I set mine to 250NM) that don't change if you change a setting in graphics display. I like how now you can see a line of thunderstorms 20 minutes before you get to them. I like the cloud layers and how they are interlaced and depicted, its nice to see see cirrus layers at 25 and 32,000 feet. The upper level cloud effect is nice. I always find the local weather to be accurately depicted. I really like how weather is depicted over the oceans and swaths of land with no weather reporting. The radar and rain are generally accurate. Just a great program.

I have been fighting getting AES for quite a while. And I'd like to say my fears were unfounded. But.. They were not. I had a choice long ago between GSX and AES. I chose GSX because I always have a feeling this was a subpar product. I fly a lot in Germany. I have pretty much every Aerosoft German airport made. Like many people I was very disappointed in the static gateways and what I perceived to be a money grab from Aerosoft. I believe I was right. Why? If you own GSX you are not getting anything but moving jetways essentially. I noticed the pushback system is inferior to GSX. It's very jerky, unpredictable, leaves your airplane in weird spots. On push back your wheels don't roll with PA airbuses (with GSX they do.) The vehicles are non-descript and the graphics aren't as good as GSX. You dont get name brands like Swissport, or Dtna or Menzies or the airlines you get one fake handling company. With GSX you have animated baggage handlers throwing luggage and luggage entering the cargo hold. Catering people push a cart to and from the air plane in GSX. You don't get any of that with AES. You also dont get a de-icer truck at the gate. At least my jetways move now.

Typical Aerosoft Mega airport, maybe a bit better. MK studios did a good job. Everything works, no real issues. Great FPS. Good textures. Finally the Rome we have needed!

Really good looking airplanes, nice modeling, high quality textures, sound is great, nice variety of airplanes, good flight dynamics, hi-res virtual cockpit and only 12 bucks. Disclaimer: I have never ridden in one in real life but after noticing golden ages attention to detail I think this is a very good representation from what I have seen on Google images/youtube. For 12 bucks you can't go wrong for some barnstorming fun. I would buy another golden ages product without hesitation.

Really Amazing, Better than San Diego. Much better optimization. Large area around the airport is photo real, lots of off building airports provide better immersion. Airport looks great. High res textures look awesome. Great performance. FSX was always good, but with the 5 or 6 front running developers we have these days it truly is as real as it gets.

Knocked it out of the park T2G! Man, this is good. 27 FPS on full blast. I am extremely impressed! The interior with Anthony's and the chairs in side the terminal and detail is really impressive especially considering the frame rate. LTBA was good but this is even better. A+ effort. A+ product.

Looks good, but the performance is awful. Most modern airports for FSX from FSDT, FT, FB, T2G,ImagineSim, UK2000 all run around 30FPS. This I am lucky to get more than 20. Something is severely wrong with the performance of most older Aerosoft MA titles.

I'll give it 3 stars because it does what it says, but not all it implies. To me it is just about worthless. First of all realize that I run FSX SP2. Most if not all of the screen shots and examples are from P3D v2 which handles clouds a bit differently. I think its a bit disingenuous to not show the difference between what you get with FSX and P3D. For instance in P3dv2 you get cloud shadows and other lighting and shadow hardware acceleration (HDR) that you do not get in FSX. So essentially, for FSX users you are just buying cloud textures that is it. I don't like the term they are using: "volumetric like", these are the same clouds you get in any REX program but you essentialy get 16 new "soft cloud" textures. Now be aware that you can not mix and match clouds. I thought I may be able to get stratus soft clouds and cumulus hard clouds from ESS but you can not. You either get soft clouds from soft clouds or you get hard or soft clouds from overdrive/essential. To me I'll just stick with Cumulus 50 in ESS+. This brings up another issue. It's easy to go from ess or od clouds to soft clouds, but if you want to go back you have to reinstall all the textures from ess+. So while it's instant going from ess+ to soft. It takes 5 or six minutes to reinstall "hard clouds" from ess+. The worst part. My frame rates have suffered. When using the HD clouds from Ess+ I get 54-60 FPS all day on pretty high settings. With the same settings I am getting stutters. You can can fix that by clicking DTX5 enable, but then the clouds don't look very good in my opinion. I don't know what I thought I was getting... but 11 dollars for 16 cloud textures is not worth it.

This is a really nice scenery, the airports you get are incredibly detailed and the ground textures are super sharp. I really wish PIS would redo a Tahiti X product because this product is how you do the south pacific. Vava'u looks incredible. I only have two specific complaints. 1. I was expecting more in the way of scenery in between the islands. I won't go into detail, but some of the really beautiful islands on the way to vava'u are missing. I would have liked to have seen an attempt to at least represent them. 2. Same thing, Taking off from Nuiatapatapu I dont see Tafahi. Its still really nice though. It's nice for the twin otter or C208.

This is a really great, complete aircraft. My only bone to pick is the VC is super high quality but the auto pilot section is 2-D and has sub par resolution, they could have at least made the turn knobs 3-D. It doesn't ruin the airplane, but it seems to me they could have done better. That and the payware McPhat liveries are the only things that keeps me from giving it five stars. We should have got at least 5 or 6 liveries free with the plane. Or at least the most popular liveries. When companies do thing like make you pay for liveries it lessens my opinion of them.

I was excited to see this was 50% off.... I always knew it was a pretty poor product, but every now and then you can find some redeeming quality about a bad plane.... I can't find anything redeeming about this product. The textures are extremely awful in the VC, some of the gauges are ripoffs from default fs2004 aircraft. The texture resolution is incredibly poor, think worse than premier freeware stuff. To make matters worse the accuracy of the VC is awful too. The exterior textures are awful, the liveries are not painted correctly. I thought something looked off about the text in the Hawaiian screen shot but I didn't realize how bad it was until I looked at it in person. Then plane looks terrible beyond a zoom level of 1.50. The lights on the wings aren't located correctly, the animations are choppy, the sounds don't fit the animations. I could go on, but I won't. My final thought is this is so bad it's not worth any money. Until the TDfi 717 comes out 717 fans will have to keep longing for an enjoyable to fly complete 717 package.

Nice scenery, surprisingly good frame rates, very accurate. Some UK2000 airports I have been disappointed in, they look too FS2002/2004. This looks very FSX native and the quality is up there with the best developers.

I got Corfu X and Rodos X together in a special. Rodos is better than Corfu. Rhodes more true to life and looks like more attention was given to it. As with most GAP airports there are many landmarks around the area that make the scenery feel better. The hotels the Powerplant. My only complaint is that if you have UTX Europe you will get double coastlines. I have been trying to figure out which file controls the CVX (vectors for coastlines) but haven't been able to. Overall a good scenery and nice representation of Rodos.

Solid scenery and a great representation of Corfu. Ground textures are just too blurry and too low def. Pluses. The airport looks pretty good, You get photo scenery for the entire island and there are many landmarks present. I got this bundled with Rodos for 15 dollars so I don't feel cheated. I tried a friends CorfuX scenery from a competitor and it was much better. If you have to have Corfu, this is not the one you want. GAP's Rodos scenery is much better.

Fly Tampa, that is all you need to know. Typical awesome Fly Tampa quality. Good frame rates, nice textures. As always there are objects outside the airport perimeter just to give the approaches extra realism. That's what makes Fly Tampa sceneries so good.

Pretty good representation of Faa'a. Much better than the one Aerosoft give you in tahiti X. But its still an odd scenery. The trees are wierd. Trees are variable and when you 20 exactly the same in a row it ruins the experience, its rookie stuff. There is also just some odd modeling, things that seemed like after thoughts. It's the best Faa'a there is availible. The terminal and parking are very accurate and the buildings on the terminal side look pretty good! I figured out how to merge it with Tahiti X and now it's a pretty convincing experience.

Very well done, I'm very happy that someone is finally making sceneries because they want to, not because they just want to make money. The pacific has been so neglected until pacsim came along. Aerosoft Tahiti X was great and NXGN is doing some good scenery but PacSim Rarotonga has raised the bar. The textures are crisp, the frames are smooth, I like that pacsim puts in real to life details where other developers would have used generic scenery objects. Rarotonga is not very big, but this is a great scenery, very detailed, tons of custom objects, a lot of work went into this one little island. My only criticism and this is just an Idea is they should have done all of the Cook Islands and airports and raised the price a little. Flight simmers want an immerse area to fly in and do point to point flights. That's why I loved Tahiti X so much. Maybe we can look forward to Cook Islands X just like Tonga Domestic? A super detailed Aitutaki would be awesome.

I had hopes that this was better than the ATR72, but it's much worse. The ATRs weren't brilliant but after a few hours of tweaking they were okay representations of the aircraft. Please look carefully at the screenshots. Look at the tail. The textures are mismatched the tail texture bleeds onto the fuselage and if you try to repaint it, you can't because the the texture boundaries are wrong. If you look around the mid section there is a place where the model was crudely joined together the window is smaller and cut off (not round). The textures on the body get distorted towards the bottom and that mess behind the wing looks like something out of FS98. Also, the static dischargers on the winglets are placed incorrectly and bleed through the winglet at the base. I just have to wonder did Virtualcol even take a second look the airplane before sending it to market? I don't understand how you can have great looking engines and landing gear then when it comes to the livery textures you use something that is sub par even for an AI model. The FRONTIER livery makes me laugh, it's so poorly rendered and blocky . The E190 VC is terrible too. I don't understand why they have popups when the ATR 72/42 600 models had the same windows displayed in the VC. I'm sorry but the "frame rate friendly" excuse isn't jiving anymore, these are minor oversights any developer would have noticed. Easy fixes for problems that should never have been witnessed by customers. I hope virtualcol sees this review takes a look at the product and then fixes everything wrong with it. I have worked with several developers on freeware airplanes and even those developers would put out a high quality product for no money. These guys are charging money and they don't even have the common courtesy to fix glaring defects. I'm not even talking about the lack of quality, just spend more time making sure the airplane at least looks as good and functions as well as a default FSX plane if you are going to charge money. Good luck getting in contact with VirtualCol.

The makers of this scenery need to redo their screen shots. This scenery is much higher quality than the screenshots allude to and the product is worth at least 12 EURO. I would liken this to an early Aerosoft GAP product, I honestly think its only slightly below the quality of AS MA Stockholm Arlanda. Which means it's still pretty darn good. It's an all inclusive scenery which in many ways makes it better than those other sceneries that give you basically the boundaries of the airport fence. Really, all Scansim needs to do is improve some of the textures on the terminals and this would be a a really great product. This scenery is highly accurate, and all the modeling has been optimized to have almost no frame rate impact. I think it looks really good at night. Snag it up while it's at this price, it's totally worth it! I gets 4 stars because I consider 5 star scenery designers to be FlyTampa, FSDT, LHSims, Flightbeam, etc.. This is not quite on that level but I have to say if one of those developers came out with an EKCH scenery I would NOT, switch from this SCANSIM EKCH scenery. It's pretty good and a tremendous value.

Really neat add on. I love Tahiti, I have been there several times. This scenery captures the Society Islands quite well. My only criticism is the reef textures should be a bit better, they look good from 3000 feet but not from 1000 feet. Some of the airports are inaccurate or embellished, but it dosen't really hamper the experience. I would have liked a little sharper mesh too, but compared to default this is 10 times better.